On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Tisza Gergő <gti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aryeh Gregor <simetrical+wikil...@...> writes: > > > I believe the major problems with the script are > > > > 1) It sent data to a server not directly controlled by the Wikimedia > > Foundation. No personally identifiable information should be sent in > > bulk to any non-Wikimedia server. Operation of any server hosting > > significant amounts of sensitive information must be directly and > > immediately accountable to Wikimedia's normal chain of command. > > I don't think thats reasonable. WikiMiniAtlas, for example, is hosted by > WM-DE, > thus every time it is used, IP data is sent to a non-WMF server. (Users > have to > click to load it, but it is linked from every page that has coordinates, so > it > can be considered bulk. And when it gets replaced with OSM, static map > snippets > will be loaded by default from a WM-DE-owned cache server, if I understand > the > setup correctly.) > > Of course, there should be *some* limit on what servers can receive data. > As I > said, the obvious choice for me would be to tie it to chapters (maybe it > could > even be included in the chapter agreement?). That, and maybe WMF staff > should > have root access for emergencies? > afaik roots on the toolserver who have access to logs have to be signed off by the WMF before they are allowed access. > > > 2) This use of data was not specifically authorized by the Wikimedia > > Foundation, via either the Board or appropriate officers. Peter may > > be a checkuser, but that gives him authorization only to use checkuser > > functions, not to collect or harvest other types of data. As has been > > noted, the data collected includes much more than checkusers can > > access in the course of using their checkuser rights. > > Agreed. So consider this as a request for authorization :) he would obviously need to ask for this himself. > > > > Last I heard, Erik Zachte is working on improved statistics for all > > Wikimedia projects. These are running on Wikimedia servers and > > specifically approved by Wikimedia. It seems like the best course of > > action would be for people to point out what they think is lacking in > > his statistics, and perhaps offer to help improve them. > > Certainly, but that in itself is no reason not to have another system for > the > time being. It is not unheard of that developement of new features get > delayed > by a few years :) We have a working system in place; I don't think it > should be > removed just becuase there will be a better one at some indefinite point in > time. It can removed at that time just as well. > > As for statistics-related feature requests, I would have quite a few :) > Unique > visits/visitors, referrer data, country/browser/OS distribution (I seem to > recall seeing something like this in Erik's stats, but I can't find it > now), > breakdown by action and by user group, search term statistics (without the > wikistics.falsicon.de JS hack), gadget usage data. An API would also be > nice (so > that for example a user script can query the data for all internal links on > the > page, and show a colormap - it would be a nice tool for designing the > layouts of > portals). > > (It would be somewhat unfair to say Erik's starts are lacking these, since > our > stat can't measure most of them either. What I would miss most would be > visitor > counts and browser distribution. Also, I think stats.grok.se and > wikistics.falsicon.de give slightly incorrect page view results because > they > don't take redirects and special pages into account.) > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
